Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4315) to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require publication on the Internet of the basis for determinations that species are endangered species or threatened species, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today just before Congress goes on a 5-week recess for the entire month of August and the first week of September. During that time, we will celebrate Labor Day. There are a lot of reasons to celebrate Labor Day, but it has particular context to this debate today.

One hundred years ago this Labor Day, Martha died.

Now, perhaps not everybody here knows about or has heard about Martha. Martha was the last passenger pigeon. She died in the Cincinnati Zoo. None of us remember passenger pigeons, but they were in numbers so great--billions--that they would darken the sky for hours or days as they passed. Yet, within a very short period of time, they became extinct. I believe she is stuffed and on display at the Smithsonian. I think they have a special exhibit on this that I would recommend to people to remember the way things used to be.

We did then, 50 years later, pass the Endangered Species Act. So this is kind of symmetrical in that, 100 years ago, there was the last passenger pigeon, and 50 years later, we adopted a law to try and preserve species. I think the most eloquent words I have ever heard on endangered species were from Justice Douglas on the Mineral King decision. This doesn't do all of his decision justice, but here is just one sentence:

When a species is gone, it is gone forever. Nature's

genetic chain--billions of years in the making--is broken for

all time. Conserve water. Conserve land. Conserve life.

Then he went on to speculate about what might be lost with any individual species, what potential it might have had. Could it cure cancer? If we lose these species, who knows?

So Congress 50 years ago--in a very different time and in a very bipartisan way--passed the Endangered Species Act.

Today, we have before us yet another missed opportunity. I am not going to look at the Endangered Species Act and say it is perfect. It isn't. I believe a 50-year-old law could use some revision. A lot has been learned. A lot of real science has changed in the interim, in particular, the individual listing of species, and particularly when they occupy the same space. It becomes very problematic, as opposed to taking more of an ecosystem-based approach. There are some who are modifying the whole idea of how we deal with critical habitat, but that is not before us today. It wasn't considered by the so-called ``working group'' of the committee or ``special group'' or whatever it was.

They concluded that the Endangered Species Act is a failure because it hasn't recovered enough species. They did leave out a little fact that 90 percent of the species that are listed are recovering at the rate specified in their Federal recovery plans. This doesn't happen instantaneously. There are years of degradation of environment, years of overharvesting or of overhunting. Those things don't get changed in a short period of time, but 90 percent are on target. They left that out probably because it didn't support their conclusion that the act just isn't working at all.

We have an estimate, actually, that without the Endangered Species Act passed by a more enlightened Congress--bipartisan--50 years ago, there would be 227 species that would have gone extinct since the law's passage. They include gray wolves--although, there are some trying to turn around that recovery effort, including some in this administration--green sea turtles, humpback whales, and, of course, the iconic bald eagle. Without the Endangered Species Act, they, in all probability, would all be extinct, a memory for our generation--gone.

As I said, it is not perfect, and I think there are changes we could make. It is truly a deliberative process in the committee, but that wouldn't be just a small group from one side of the aisle going around the country, holding so-called ``hearings'' or ``listening sessions.'' We could assure greater transparency in ways that weren't considered and won't be proposed here today. We could promote better the use of best science. We could improve cooperation and coordination with the States that are committed to species protection and recovery.

However, none of the legislation before us will do that. It will do nothing to improve species recovery. It will do nothing to improve the science underlying listing decisions. Instead, actually, contravening what the Republicans espouse to wish, these bills will, instead, increase the amount of red tape that is involved, create more reporting requirements, divert agency resources from recovery efforts, and most oddly--and, I think, perhaps, it is the oddest and most objectionable and nonsensical part of this legislation--it will deem that any data submitted by any Native American tribe, any city, county, or State, will be deemed to be the best available science.

Now, there are 16,000 counties in America. Let's say a couple of them come to a different conclusion. Suddenly, the agency is confronted with: we have the best available science from this county, and we have the best available science from this county, and we have the best available science from this county. Hmm. Wow. Haven't we created an unbelievable potential for litigation over any decisions that are made given that mandate? I think we have. Of course, that may be why they go on later in the bill to limit attorneys' fees--because they are anticipating that there will be a huge proliferation of litigation, and they want to mitigate the costs of the problem that they are going to create with this nonsensical ``this is the best available science.'' I think it is going to create a lot of tension, potentially, between States and counties--rural counties and urban counties--because they are all vying to submit the best available science.

Here we are, yet again, taking up time on the floor, and I guess we need to do that before we get to real things, like the suing of the President of the United States despite the fact that courts have definitively decided we can't do that. We have political tools, and it is a controversy, but that is not before us today--that is tomorrow--so we are trying to kill time to build up to that end just before we go off on recess. But I am going to raise another topic, and it is a bit sensitive.

About 12 years ago, I had massive fires burning in my district--the Biscuit Fire--and the committee just happened to be holding a hearing on

wildfires. It devolved into the usual partisan ``you go to your corner, and I will go to mine. We need to do a forest supplemental. We need to do this.'' As sometimes I do, I expostulated a bit in the committee, and I went and used my entire 5 minutes to say how wrong I thought this was and that I thought fires were very bipartisan in their destruction and that we should cut it out.

A few Members--oddly enough, from very different perspectives--came to me afterwards. That would have been George Miller. It is predictable that George would side with me, but also we had Scott McInnis, we had John Shadegg, and, ultimately, we had Greg Walden involved. We sat down, and we hammered out something that, ultimately, didn't pass through the House, but our framework was adopted by the Senate--HFRA. Then it came back to the House and was adopted. It was an attempt to expedite fuel reduction and prevent the intensity of future fires.

I look at that as a model of how we should deal with fires. We do need to do more fuel reduction work, and we do need to do more preparation and pre-positioning, but we also have to fight the fires that are burning today.

Now there is the rarest of rare things in Washington, D.C., even rarer than the rarest endangered species, which would be a bill which is bipartisan. I guess a lot of people don't know what that means anymore.

It means it is supported by both Democrats and Republicans, bicameral, by both Democrats and Republicans in the House and in the Senate in substantial numbers, and is supported by the President of the United States.

Now, that is a pretty endangered thing. It has been around for quite a number of months. We have yet in the House. And it is a bill that is designed both to mitigate for future fires and to more efficiently fight fires.

The agencies that are tasked with fighting fires are about to run out of money. It happens every year. Who cares if they run out of money? Well, they have got to keep fighting the fires.

All right. Well, what do they do? They gut all their other programs-- including the fuel reduction program, the forest health program, the timber program, the recreation program--things that are going to bring about more intense and more fires in the future and impact anybody who has a national forest or interior lands in their State or their area.

Now, this bill has yet to have a single hearing or any consideration, except for a mention in the Ryan budget which said he didn't support it. That is it. That is the total action by the House of Representatives on this issue. That is very sad. That is what we should be here on the floor today considering.

There are, as of this moment--I just checked it out because it is worse every day. We have, currently, nationally, 25 major fires: seven in Oregon--these are all uncontained or partially uncontained--six in California; four in Washington, including the largest in the State's history; three in Utah; two in Idaho; one in Colorado; and phenomenal lightning storms are predicted over the next 2 days, which means many, many, many more fires. Yet Congress is going to pass, I expect the House will pass, this ESA, so-called ESA bill today and leave town without dealing with the firefighting issue. I think it is very sad.

Now, some say, well, we have already done our job. We passed a bill, a couple of bills, a number of bills that could deal with forest health, future mitigation, fuel reduction. That is true. But even if they became law today, they wouldn't deal with today's problem that the agencies are going to run out of fire. And even if they became law today, it would take many years to get there.

I have got some pretty good estimates. We have somewhere around 75 million acres of land at high risk of wildfire in the West. And if we use the most conservative possible estimate, one that estimates there is a lot of commercial value there that reduces thinning cost, one that assumes that there is a lot of biomass available that is economic, you could get it down to, say, $300, $500 an acre. Well, that would be $20 billion to go out and do that work. We are about to spend the paltry budget for this year, $300 million for fuel reduction on fighting current fires. So we aren't exactly getting there.

It is a real issue, and that is what we should be dealing with here today.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

The gentleman made a point with which I would agree, which is they should consider and give due weight to local submissions and people in the area. But unfortunately, and perhaps the gentleman is unaware, this bill elevates that, and it does say all science submitted by States, tribes, and local governments is, by definition, the best scientific and commercial data. Then, if you refer back to the law, under basis for determinations on endangered species and a number of other things, the Secretary shall rely on the best scientific and commercial data.

Well, now, suddenly everybody who is submitting something has the best commercial and scientific data, and the Secretary is somehow supposed to sort out between 10 different counties, five States, 14 cities, and 18 Indian tribes who all have different disagreeing best available commercial data and science. You are creating a standard which, given the existing law which you didn't change, is going to be impossible to meet.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 1 minute.

Well, tomorrow I fully expect the Republicans to prevail on the floor of the House to authorize litigation against the President of the United States for nonjusticiable controversy, all per all the previous precedents of the court.

I would note they spent $525 an hour on attorneys to defend the indefensible Defense of Marriage Act, which was ultimately found unconstitutional. And I expect they will spend well over $500 an hour for a nonjusticiable political stunt suing the President.

But beyond that, during this Congress, the requests, subpoenas, et cetera, by the committee to the Department of the Interior for purported conspiracies, which have yielded nothing, cost $2.5 million. The total award to attorneys was $1.7 million. So if we reined in the subpoenas a little bit, you could save more money than by limiting the attorneys and people's access to justice.

With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).

I would inquire of the time remaining on both sides.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Chairman, I would reserve the balance of my time, since I only have 1 minute remaining, until that side has no further speakers.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I will close where I ended my opening remarks, 25 major fires burning in the West: seven in Oregon, six in California, four in Washington, two in Utah, two in Idaho, and one in Colorado. And by this time next week, probably twice as many, but next week Congress will be out of session.

The agencies will run out of money. They can't stop fighting the fires. So

what they will do is they will pull back money that would prevent future intense wildfires from prevention programs. They will pull back money from recreation programs. They will pull back money from a host of things that Americans care about and want to have funded just to fight these fires. It is an endless cycle. We need to deal with it.

We could have dealt with it here today instead of spending multiple hours on a bill which is going nowhere, which is poorly drafted to the point where anybody, any city, county, tribe, State who writes on the back of a napkin can submit that to the agency and it must be considered the best available science and commercial data. And under the law, the Secretary has to use that to make a decision.

How the heck is that going to work? You are saying you are worried about attorney's fees; you are creating a universe for new litigation with this misguided approach.

So I wish we would return to a bipartisan addressing of the forest fire issue because I know there is bipartisan concern on it. There is a bill pending in the House--54 Republicans, 54 Democrats. We should take that bill up today, tomorrow, or Thursday before we leave town and fund our firefighting efforts.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

This is similar to an amendment offered by the chairman in committee which carved out an exemption for private individuals. This would carve out another amendment for the Department of Defense.

Unfortunately, crafting legislation so it doesn't have unintended impacts is often a difficult, deliberative process. In this case, the overly broad language in this section would still require commercial data from timber and oil and gas companies. That is not covered by the exemptions in the bill. And also, it could require data containing business activity locations, operation plans, information regarding species found on their lands, and they would be published on the Internet, which would be an invitation to trespass in the case of private timber companies having to publish that sort of invitation.

So I don't think the exemption goes far enough. I think the entire provision should be stricken. But again, I will not bother to oppose this amendment, but I will oppose the underlying bill.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, and it was mentioned by a number of Democrats on this side, we don't think the Endangered Species Act is perfect and we could work on a bipartisan basis on modernization-type reforms to bring it into the 21st century, compliant with current science. However, that is not before us today. But I am hopeful that this amendment, because of a very unsettling precedent by the Obama administration, will get bipartisan support.

Now, the Republicans may, in this case, agree with the objectives of an agency of government which has gone rogue in this case, which is Fish and Wildlife. They have been trying for years to remove the gray wolf from the Endangered Species Act. Unfortunately, science isn't on their side. Wolves have not recovered throughout much of their range. Oregon and Washington have a few packs; California, Colorado, Utah, and New York have none. However, they have cooked up a little bit of science to justify their determination to delist.

Now, in the case of Oregon, OR-7, his mate, and pups, might be pretty safe. They are down in the corner of the State. California won't be hunting wolves because of their own Endangered Species Act. But his relatives up in the northeast corner of Oregon, should they cross the border into Idaho, they will be immediately assassinated. That is the result of what Fish and Wildlife and Congress combined have done.

They cooked up the science. Unfortunately, science has to be peer- reviewed and published in journals. No journal would publish it. Not even some of the captive industry journals or the livestock association journal. Nobody would publish it. They said this is junk.

So what did they do? Well, they came up with a zombie journal. They revived an internal journal called North American Fauna, which was an internal Fish and Wildlife little newsletter, and it hasn't been printed previously since 1991.

Now, again, I imagine most Republicans are saying: So what, if this helps us get rid of the wolf--which many on that side of the aisle would like to do--so be it, that is good.

Well, just think what is going to happen when Fish and Wildlife and this administration, or another administration, wants to make a decision contrary to what you care about? What if they want to cook up a phony science on the sage-grouse, the lesser prairie chicken, or on some of these other species that have been talked about today? They drag out the North American fauna label and they say: Hey, it has been published, and that is what we based our decision on.

This is a very disturbing trend by an administration--inexplicable that this administration would go down this particular path. And again, even if you may agree with delisting the wolf and greatly reducing the populations, which are nowhere near what they should be for a full recovery, threatening again a future, more comprehensive, listing-- again, a bit shortsighted if you support that, but you may.

But just think if you let this stand. If you let these people these Federal bureaucrats, these hacks, get away with this. They cooked something up. I mean, really? You can't even get the sheep journal to publish this because they really hate the wolves, or the cattleman's journal, they really hate the wolves. No, they wouldn't publish it. They had to come up with a phony internal journal, because it was so bad that they knew they would be subject to ridicule and violating essentially their own morals and ethics by doing that.

I would hope that the Republicans can support this amendment, because even though they may agree with the ends here, they surely should disagree with the process.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, well, I didn't understand that.

Look, a Federal agency revived a journal that had been extinct for 23 years. It is an internal document. They took phony science and published it in that, and then they based a delisting decision on it. If they based a listing decision on it, you guys would be going berserk over there.

What I am precluding is future Federal agencies, no matter where they come down on a listing decision, from using phony science which is only self-published. This is like whack nuts who write books about crazy things and they publish it themselves and say: Look, it was a book. Yeah, it is a book. You paid to publish it.

In this case, they used taxpayer money to publish a phony study to justify a decision they had already made, which you might happen to agree with.

But what happens when they use that same tactic to do that with a decision you disagree with, to actually list something?

This has nothing to do with transparency. It doesn't need to be transparent because they couldn't use it. It is phony science. They would not be allowed to use phony science by self-publishing it. That is simply what the amendment does, and I can't believe you guys are going to oppose it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I am bemused by this.

It is simple. It says:

The term ``best scientific and commercial data available''

includes all such data submitted by a State, tribal, or

county government.

That means all the data. That means if all the counties, States, and tribes don't agree, you have conflicting best available data. That is what we are saying. We want them to take all data into account, but you can't deem that theirs is the best.

In the case of nitrification in the Columbia River, Oregon and Washington disagree. They have competing science, but now, they would have to weigh it equally. I have heard tribes say to save salmon and delist them, you have to take all the dams out of the river. That becomes the best available science, if submitted by a tribe?

What are you guys thinking? We want them to listen to everybody. Everybody can submit something, but we don't then deem it to be the best available data. That is nuts.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I just wonder if the gentleman can name one piece of litigation which was sponsored by Federal tax dollars, and I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, the gentleman can't name one lawsuit, one organization using Federal tax dollars. I guess that is probably because he is familiar with OMB Circular A-87 that says neither a State, local government, or an Indian tribal government can use money provided by the Federal Government for legal expenses for prosecution of claims against the Federal Government.

Well, okay, that leaves a big hole. What about nonprofits? They get Federal money. That would be OMB Circular A-122, ``Cost Principles for Nonprofit Organizations,'' which says, ``Costs of legal, accounting, and consultant services, and related costs, incurred in connection with defense against Federal Government claims or appeals, antitrust suits, or the prosecution of claims or appeals against the Federal Government, are unallowable.''

So we are now going to have the agency chase a Chimera--that is, something that has never happened and can't happen under law. They have got to go out and spend a bunch of money trying to unearth it.

If the gentleman could just name one instance, then that might change the argument, but he can't.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, the gentleman misstated what his amendment does. It doesn't say that individuals filing litigation under the Endangered Species Act must disclose whether or not they receive any Federal funds and are using any Federal funds in this case. It doesn't say that.

It says that Fish and Wildlife Service must determine. How is the Fish and Wildlife Service going to determine whether or not someone used Federal funds?

As he said, money is fungible. He is saying they may be violating the circular that prohibits nonprofit organizations from doing this. They may be violating the circular.

These are, of course, criminal offenses, that prohibit State, local, and Indian tribal governments from using Federal money for such litigation. He is saying that may be go going on, so then Fish and Wildlife should just discover it themselves.

How is that going to work? It sends Fish and Wildlife on a mission that it is not equipped to handle. They can't say: pretty please, tell us.

If someone is violating the law, they are probably not going to volunteer it to Fish and Wildlife.

If you wanted to do this, you would have to write an amendment that amends the Rules of Civil Procedure or whatever--I am not a lawyer-- that would require that these litigants disclose at the time of filing their litigation. Saying Fish and Wildlife should find out after it has been filed is absolutely absurd.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 4315.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring before the House legislation that would help update and improve the Endangered Species Act, a law that was passed initially 40 years ago, but has not been reauthorized since 1988.

H.R. 4315 melds together four commonsense and focused bills introduced earlier this year by myself and my colleagues, Mrs. Lummis of Wyoming, Mr. Neugebauer of Texas, and Mr. Huizenga of Michigan. While respecting the original intent of the ESA to conserve species, this bill would help make the law more effective for both species and people.

Because of the more than 500 ESA-related lawsuits that have been filed against the government during this administration alone, it has become clear that costly litigation is not only driving ESA priorities but that litigation has become an impediment to species recovery.

I should also note that, regardless of what some groups are saying, this is not a comprehensive bill. It is four sections that aim to increase transparency; to enlist greater consultation by States, localities, and tribes; and to reduce taxpayer-financed attorneys' fees to help invest more funding in actual species recovery.

For example, section 2 of the bill requires data used by Federal agencies that decide which species should be added to the threatened or endangered list to be publicly available and accessible through the Internet. What a remarkable idea--transparency. The last significant update to the ESA was when the Internet was in its infancy stages. Posting data supporting key ESA decisions online will greatly enhance transparency and data quality. The American people should be able to access such data before Federal listing or delisting decisions are final.

It is troubling that hundreds of sweeping listing decisions by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service cite unpublished studies, professional opinions, and other sources that are inaccessible to the public, yet this data would be used to regulate the very people who don't have access to this information. This secrecy goes against the grain of good science and transparency. Data transparency is not only good for the American public, in that it makes our government more accountable, but it is also good for species because it allows for an open conversation about improving species science.

As biologist Rob Roy Ramey testified at a Natural Resources Committee hearing:

When the data are not publicly accessible, legitimate

scientific inquiry and debate is effectively eliminated, and

no independent third party can produce the results. This

action puts the basis of some ESA decisions outside the realm

of science, and species recovery is no better off.

Withholding data does not further the goal of species

recovery.

I couldn't agree more with that statement, especially when over 700 species could potentially be listed over

the next few years throughout the country. These potential listings are due to this administration's megalawsuit settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians, groups, I might add, Mr. Chairman, that have filed hundreds of lawsuits against the government at taxpayer expense.

One of these species could include the northern long-eared bat, and I have a map here to show. This listing could impact 39 States. As you can see, Mr. Chairman, it is nearly all of the Eastern States. Information on data when it comes to this species listing can only help and not hurt. The bill before us today fosters the release of this information.

Section 3 of the bill would enhance State, local, and tribal involvement in ESA decisions by requiring that, before any listing decision is made, the Federal Government must disclose its data to States affected by such actions. In addition, section 3 ensures that data from local, State, and tribal entities--those are the entities that are closest to the ground, Mr. Chairman--be factored into ESA listing decisions.

Section 4 would require the administration to track and make available online the costs, in time and in resources, to the taxpayers as a result of ESA-related litigation.

Finally, section 5 would seek to reduce taxpayer-financed attorneys' fees to help ensure Federal resources are focused more on species protection and recovery than on lucrative legal fees for serial litigants. Such fees now, Mr. Chairman, are awarded as high as $600 an hour. This provision in section 5 puts in place the same reasonable hourly caps on attorneys' fees used in another Federal law--the Equal Access to Justice Act--which deals with veterans, Social Security disability, and other such claims.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4315 starts with modest, sensible updates to the ESA by promoting transparency, greater State, local, and tribal involvement, and by bringing ESA litigation fees in line with another Federal law.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), who is the author of one of the provisions within this bill.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), an author of another provision of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), another person who is the author of another section of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford), a member of the working group.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek), another member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), another member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), another member of the House Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), a former member of the House Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), in whose district we had a field hearing on the impact of the Endangered Species Act.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) who is also experiencing the effects of this act.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart), a former member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao), a very active Member on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I advise the gentleman from Oregon that I am prepared to close, so if he wants to use his time, then I will close.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me make a couple of points on issues that have been raised. First of all, H.R. 4315 is not a comprehensive reform to the Endangered Species Act. It is very targeted.

I might mention that several Members on the other side talked about species going extinct. I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, that during testimony in the House Natural Resources Committee, nobody testified that they are in favor of species going extinct.

Several Members said this bill weakens the Endangered Species Act. Mr. Chairman, how does transparency weaken a bill? I do not see how that works.

Finally, there seems to be a lot of discussion about allowing local entities and tribes to use their data in the listing of species. Several Members on the other side said the act deems that should happen. It does not at all. In fact, let me read it. It says:

The best scientific and commercial data available includes

all such data submitted by State, tribal, or county

government.

Now, we will have more debate on this because there are two amendments that address this section, but I just wanted to mention that this is a targeted look at the Endangered Species Act. It is not a comprehensive reform, but it certainly will, I think, get more people involved, especially because of this megasettlement, the impact that this will have on the rest of the country.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of H.R. 4315.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I offer this manager's amendment which would clarify two important items relating to section 2 and public disclosure of the Federal Government's ESA data.

First, the amendment would provide an important but technical clarification that the intent of the bill is for any Federal public disclosure of ESA data on the Internet under the bill to be completely consistent with data privacy laws of States, including those that protect personal identifiable information from disclosure.

A significant amount of the ``best available scientific and commercial data'' currently used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service for ESA listing decisions is derived from States which have diverse laws protecting the privacy of their citizens and sensitive species data.

While some make completely baseless suggestions that more data disclosure on the Internet could lead to poaching of species, this amendment would allow States an added layer of confidence that the information they choose to share with the Federal Government does not compromise their own data privacy laws.

Second, the amendment clarifies that the bill would not require disclosure of classified Department of Defense information related to lands, personnel, installations, or waters within their jurisdiction.

The Endangered Species Act has a significant impact on U.S. military activities. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service Web site, more than 300 ESA-listed species are located on the more than 25 million acres spread across hundreds of Department of Defense installations across the Nation. While greater data transparency related to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service listing decisions is important, branches of the American military should not have to disclose information that would in any way compromise national security.

So my amendment would make clear that the Fish and Wildlife Service's or the National Marine Fisheries Service's disclosure of best available scientific and commercial data on the Internet can be accomplished while safeguarding classified or sensitive Defense Department information.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Oregon for his support of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, when I listen to my good friend from Oregon's arguments, in many respects, maybe indirectly, he is making precisely the argument that we are making with this bill. That is, whatever data is being used to list or delist should be made available to the public so they can ascertain if that data is correct.

Now, the gentleman talked about data that was made up. Okay, that is his interpretation. If it is made up, shouldn't we know that? Shouldn't we know that that is what the data is being used to make these decisions rather than just accepting it?

Mr. Chairman, that is precisely what this bill is all about, to have transparency on this scientific data. That is really all we are asking about.

The argument got shifted to other things, like we are destroying the Endangered Species Act and so forth. Nothing could be further from the truth.

His amendment, however, does something that I think violates the principle we are trying to do. He wants to exclude certain stuff from us being transparent with it, or for the people having transparency to that data.

So, Mr. Chairman, I urge also rejection of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I am not embarrassed by this piece of legislation. Let me walk through this and explain why this language says what it says because I think our friends on the other side of the aisle are leaving out a very important word when they are debating this issue.

The language in question is the term ``best scientific and commerce data available includes all such data submitted,'' and so forth.

They are arguing as if the word ``such'' was taken out, where it would read ``scientific and commercial data available includes all data.'' We didn't say ``all data.'' We said ``all such data.''

What does that mean? How does that relate? All such data that relates to scientific and commercial data coming from the local communities-- what is wrong with that argument?

By the way, the agency still has discretion to use that data, but it should be part of it because lacking having this language in the bill means that the only data is what my friend from Oregon criticized when we were discussing the wolves.

Mr. Chairman, I think this language is pretty straightforward. It says ``all such data that relates to it, as developed by local communities and tribes.'' That should be part of the transparency.

So I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for bringing this issue to the floor. I think it adds very much to what we are trying to do with this underlying legislation, which is adding transparency to our efforts.

I support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, of course this body should recognize the treaties that we have made with our Native American neighbors. And I say that with the privilege of representing a central Washington district that has two Indian tribes and reservations within my district. So that goes without saying.

However, we have had on this floor I don't know how many motions to recommit. And sometimes I wonder exactly what these motions to recommit are trying to do, other than maybe just make a political point. And I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that is probably so true with this motion to recommit.

Now why do I say that? I say that because this motion to recommit implies that tribal members should be part of the discussion. Well, of course they should. But apparently my friend from Arizona did not read the bill because section 3 in the bill says very specifically that consultation should be made with locals, including tribes.

And to add insult to injury, Mr. Speaker, the last amendment that was offered, offered by my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), would take out the section that says tribal respect ought to be in the underlying bill, and the gentlewoman from Arizona voted for it. Now she comes down to the floor and says we ought to insert into the bill something for tribal authorities that we already had in the bill.

I have no idea, Mr. Speaker, where these motions to recommit are going, but I will say this. This bill deals with transparency in the Federal Government to the citizens of the United States. That ought to be number one on our minds, and that is what this bill does.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to recommit and for the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 693 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York by way of Kentucky, Ms. Slaughter, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which they may revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 4315, the Endangered Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act, and

makes in order four separate amendments for floor consideration.

In fact, this rule is generous in making all filed amendments which were germane and otherwise met the rules of the House in order. Only four were filed, and they are all made in order, so it is hard to see how anyone could vote against this resolution as not being fair.

The resolution also provides for 1 hour of general debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member from the House Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to introduce you to an individual in history by the name of John Gochnaur. John Gochnaur was the shortstop for the Cleveland Indians in 1902 and in 1903. In 1902, he played the entire year, and his batting average was .185, as he committed also 48 errors, but was still good enough to be the shortstop in 1903 as well, where he completed a second season, once again hitting .185, but this time committing a still record 98 errors as shortstop, which means one out of every five times he touched the ball, he threw it away.

John Gochnaur probably has the record now of being the most inept major league player we have ever had in history, never hitting above the Mendoza Line and setting the standard for errors. The worst major league player--which is still quite an achievement to be a major league player--but the worst major league player we have ever had in history hit .185. The Endangered Species Act batting average would be .010 if you round it up. They have had 1,500 species listed, only 12 have actually passed the test and been recovered, for an actual batting average of .008, or .010 if you really want to round up.

The Endangered Species Act, quite frankly, is the most ineffective and inefficient piece of legislation that we have in the history of this country. It does not work. It does not meet its goals. It never has and it never will. The sad part is, though, this act does not go into significant changes to the Endangered Species Act, which would change that batting average. Instead, Chairman Hastings has to be commended for getting a group of people to work together that did a study, got testimony, produced a report, and came up with the most basic of reforms that have to be necessary before anything significant can go on past that.

What these reforms are is simply saying, look, if you are going to have an Endangered Species Act, for heaven's sake, make sure that the data that is used to come up with the realization of the program you have is open to the people, it is transparent and it is public knowledge. They are paying for it. You might as well make sure that they have the opportunity to see it.

The President of the United States recognized this when he said in 2008:

Democracy requires accountability; accountability requires

transparency.

And then he quoted Justice Brandeis, who said that ``sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.'' That is the concept that is here. The data used to make these decisions should be available to the public, and presently, it is not.

One of the witnesses in the committee, when it was a full committee markup on this bill, was a long-time biologist by the name Mr. Ramey, who said:

What are the effects of this lack of transparency on the

public when data are not possible or accessible? Legitimate

scientific inquiry and debate is effectively eliminated, and

no independent third party can produce the results. This

action puts the basis of some ESA decisions outside the realm

of science.

We have the issue that if there is data making these decisions, people should know about it. It should be transparent. All of the data that they use to make these decisions should be transparent. That is not what is happening today.

In an exchange between the director of Fish and Wildlife and the ranking member, the ranking member asked:

Okay. But again, why would a scientist wish to withhold

that data? I mean, if we gave them the public funds, I guess

we could require they publish the data; right? I mean, we

could change. We could put that into the language.

The Fish and Wildlife official said:

Congress could do that.

The ranking member said:

Okay. That might be something we would want to do. I don't

understand why we would go down the path of withholding the

data.

That is what this bill does. There are two elements to it. The most significant part is the first of transparency. If there is data that is going to be used, we need to make sure that we have access to that particular data.

This is a bill that was passed almost four decades ago. This is a bill the last time it was addressed I was still wearing saddleback jeans and platform shoes and my hair had color and it was parted down the middle and it covered more than just my ears. We haven't touched it since that time. They didn't have iPods back then the last time we touched it. It is a new era that requires new information and new data, and there is no reason that should be withheld from the American people, and that is what this bill tries to do.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Daines), who has had to live with the realities of the Endangered Species Act.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) because he also is faced with the unique situation, because this is not just a Western issue. This is an issue that affects all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am pleased to talk about the Endangered Species Act here because we need to make sure that the purpose of the Endangered Species Act is not to make sure that the government is always funding the listing and the maintenance of these species, but to make sure that they are healthy enough so that the government doesn't have to do that, in which case, I am sorry, the batting average is still .008. The Endangered Species Act is failing in that effort.

The methods don't work. But we are not discussing the methods here today. We are discussing something that is simply a commonsense solution to how we move forward with the Endangered Species Act.

The Governors understand that as well. I received a letter from the Western Governors' Association, signed by the Governor from Nevada, as well as the Governor from my friend's home State of Colorado, urging us to have transparency in this action, transparency in the Endangered Species Act. It is important that we simply know what is or is not taking place.

The Endangered Species Act, unfortunately, has an impact on real people. It is a regulatory taking by the Federal Government. It impacts real people's ability to use their property, it impacts real people's ability to have jobs and maintain them. To say that talking about this impact on these people is not good enough, that this is not a high enough version, this is not raising to the level, we don't care enough about these people who are impacted by that act, is something we in Congress should never say. It is significant, it is important, and to make commonsense improvements to the Endangered Species Act should be the goal.

Let me explain a couple of different areas in which these reforms are going to be significant and important.

The first one is this tries to cap the amount of money we spend wasted on litigation costs that should be actually going to the enforcement of the Endangered Species Act and recovery of these species. This act tries to set a limit on what an attorney can get for engaging in a petition against the government for the Endangered Species Act. It is mind-boggling to me that in most of the agencies of the government we put caps on what can be obtained in attorney fees who sue the government, but we don't in the Endangered Species Act.

So in San Diego, the Jonas Salk Elementary School was postponed indefinitely. The firm that actually did that postponement so the kids didn't have their school charged the Federal Government six figures, and I promise you the first number in that six figures was not 1.

In the Clinton administration, they were averaging 20 petitions a year on this act. Today, we are averaging 1,200 petitions a year. So obviously, we have a problem, as no one has a total concept of what the total cost of this litigation is or how many full-time employees we are using simply for this litigation, although we do know that the Fish and Wildlife Service allotted in 2013 $21 million and 86 full-time employees just to handling the issue of litigation.

The Ag Department has told us that the litigation cost was the third- largest cost that they were running at that time. We don't have that data. We need to have that particular data, and we also need to put in caps so we are not wasting our money on litigation, we are putting the money in the program where it should be.

That is a significant commonsense element of this particular bill. But the most significant commonsense element is simply saying people should know what data is being used to reach the decisions. The bill itself says the Federal Government shall cooperate--shall cooperate--to the maximum extent practical with the States. That simply is not being done.

Let me give you a couple of examples.

First of all, the dunes sagebrush lizard--a wonderful little lizard, Mr. Speaker, in your home State of Texas--that is trying to be listed by the Federal Government, they were using data from the 1960s, determined that they were locally extinct, the lizard was locally extinct in an area where it flat-out was not extinct. Had they gone through with this listing, 47,000 jobs in this district in Texas would have been impacted by this particular listing, and the data was inaccurate.

The Governor of Idaho asked for a FOIA request dealing with the sagebrush. He got back the emails in the FOIA request, and to summarize those emails that dealt with the national technical team report, the emails basically said: This is our approach--does anyone out there have any kind of data we can use? And if there was no data, then their next step was to use the best guess of the elements of the members who were actually working in that particular department.

That is not the way you make decisions. You collect the data first, make it public, let people know about it, then you create the decisions on where you want it to go. In Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado, actually had to go to court to try to get the department to give them the data they were using for the decisions they were going to try to use on the endangered species in that county, and that simply is not an example of how you cooperate to the maximum extent possible with the States.

We have an issue with prairie dogs in southern Utah. The problem is the Federal Government only counts prairie dogs on Federal lands to determine if they are a viable species or not. Prairie dogs are very abundant on private lands and State lands, to the point that you can actually get a permit to hunt them on private lands. Notwithstanding the fact that there is an abundance of prairie dogs, the rural electric co-op down there had to spend $150,000 to airlift transmission lines to build a transmission line so they went over Federal habitat for prairie dogs, even though other people hunting prairie dogs happened to be on the private property.

This is silly, this is unrealistic, this should not take place if we were actually having a commonsense approach to it.

The bladderpod up in Franklin County, Washington, was threatened to be listed on the endangered species. A local university came up with its own study that proved the DNA of this bladderpod was no different than another flower that was not endangered in that area.

Nonetheless, the Fish and Wildlife Service rejected that particular piece of data. They ignored it. They said it wasn't peer-reviewed, but the sad part is that they ultimately refused to tell us the data that they were using to reach their own decision. Even when that data was subpoenaed, they refused to comply with that particular subpoena.

We simply have a problem here, in that decisions are being made on the Endangered Species Act without having public access to the data being used to make those decisions, and that is wrong.

That is not the way you run a government. That is not the way transparency has to be. The people of the United States are paying for all this data. They have a right to see what it is. They have a right to look at it. They have a right to question it.

All this bill does is simply make the data that is being used public--so people know exactly what you are making those decisions on-- and try to limit the amount that we are spending on needless litigation, so you put some kind of caps on them. That is the first step.

Does that solve all the problems of the ESA? Of course not, but it is the first and most important step. This is a commonsense approach that is rational. It is where we need to go. If we can't get this done, no other reforms of a system that is failing can possibly take place.

I urge adoption of this bill. I support the underlying bill. I urge the adoption of the rule that would do it.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to reiterate this is a fair rule, and it is appropriate to the underlying piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

To be clear, the goal of the Endangered Species Act doesn't exist just to get species off the list, it exists to keep species on the planet, and has a tremendous track record of success--99 percent effective at preventing the extinction of species that have been listed on the endangered species list.

There is strong precedent in passing bipartisan Endangered Species Act measures. Last Congress, I was very proud to be an original cosponsor of Mr. Bishop's Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act, which became law in January of 2013. The Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act facilitated the recovery of four endangered species native to the Upper Colorado River Basin. The bill ensures compliance with the Endangered Species Act for over 200 projects that use water from the Colorado River and provided enough water for agricultural and municipal water use as well.

I salute Representative Bishop's efforts to pull together a bipartisan group from Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming to work together on that successful modification to the Endangered Species Act.

What we have before us today is not an example of that same bipartisan spirit and open process of work that

can build upon, rather than take a step back from, protecting species that are an important part of our ecosystem.

This bill in its current form would not only waste taxpayer dollars and Federal Government agency time by creating additional red tape and bureaucracy, but it is also a waste of our limited remaining time in session. Here we are, Mr. Speaker, with a border crisis, crises breaking out across the Middle East, and yet we are debating a particular change to the Endangered Species Act, which, regardless of its merits, is simply not one of the top two issues, five issues, 10 issues, even top 100 issues that I have heard from my constituents about over the last year.

People wonder why this legislative body is as unpopular as we are, with an approval rating of 12 percent. One need look no further than what we are working on. Rather than addressing the budget deficit or restoring fiscal stability to our country, rather than securing the border and passing comprehensive immigration reform, we are instead discussing a bill that weakens the Endangered Species Act. And regardless of whether Members want to strengthen it or weaken it or modify it--Americans care about jobs, the economy, fiscal responsibility, addressing our border crisis--having problems with the Endangered Species Act is simply not on the minds of most everyday American families. I think most American families think the Endangered Species Act is a fine thing, maybe they think it should move this way or that way or be better or stronger or weaker, but that is not the issue that they want us addressing with our limited time in session.

This is our last week in session in the month of July. In the month of August, this esteemed body won't even meet once. In September, we will come back for 2 or 3 weeks. I don't know--are we going to be discussing endangered species for those 2 or 3 weeks as well?

It kind of reminds me of the historical precedent of Emperor Nero fiddling while Rome burned. Here we are in record deficits, war and threatened wars are enveloping the Middle East with the Islamic state and ISIS occupying much of Syria and Iraq, with the uncertainty in eastern Ukraine and separatists engaged in battle, with the precarious recovery of the economy, with things getting harder and harder for middle class American families to get by and support themselves and their family, and here we are with only 3 days left in session before September discussing relatively minor changes that add another bureaucratic layer of red tape to the Endangered Species Act. It is simply not what the people in my district hired me to fight for them on, and I don't think it is what the people in this country want Congress to do at this point.

There are so many issues that the American people, the people who sent us here to represent them, agree on, where there is common ground.

One example is immigration reform. Polls have shown that 87 percent of Americans support comprehensive immigration reform. Perhaps we found that last 13 percent of people who approve of Congress, maybe it is those same people who don't want to see immigration reform. The only people left who approve of these obstructionist tactics with regard to immigration reform, the tactics which are tearing families apart, hurting our economy, bloating our deficit, and preventing us from securing our border, are an ever-dwindling percentage of Americans.

Now that we are dealing with this Endangered Species Act, I hope that we can get back to addressing immigration reform. Let us have a vote on comprehensive immigration reform, a vote on raising the minimum wage, a vote on a comprehensive plan to balance the budget. Let's have a real debate and exchange real ideas to move our Nation forward.

There are a number of flaws in this modification of the Endangered Species Act which prevent it from being a true piece of bipartisan legislation with wide support from this body, like I had the opportunity to work on with Mr. Bishop last session. But I think even more importantly, Mr. Speaker, we just need to ask ourselves why, with days left before Congress adjourns for the summer, are we considering a topic that, while surely worthy of debate, hardly raises to the level of these pressing issues, like our budget deficit, the border crisis, or the Middle East, in which I hope that this body can have a substantive debate around resolving?

While we are here debating a partisan, politically charged bill that threatens to undermine the Endangered Species Act, 32 wildfires larger than 5,000 acres are burning in seven Western States. My district had several last summer, and we are worried about this summer. These fires cover a total of 1.4 million acres and are a serious threat to homes, lives, livelihoods, and health.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act of 2014. Already 196 Members have signed a discharge petition to bring this legislation to the floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this rule or the underlying bill.

The Republicans are committed to partisan politics over progress for our country, and this bill is yet another example of that agenda.

In the last 3 days of legislative business before a summer recess of 1\1/2\ months, House Republicans are using this valuable time in the people's Chamber to simply pass a bill that obstructs the Endangered Species Act rather than deals with any of the critical issues facing our country.

Congress should be considering legislation to secure the border or deal with the crisis of unaccompanied minors on our southern border, to balance our budget, to reform our broken immigration system, to deal with wildfires, to raise the minimum wage, to protect workers. But instead, here we are debating partisan changes to a piece of legislation that has, frankly, served us well and our ecosystems well over the prior decades.

We do have an emergency on our southern border with regard to unaccompanied minors from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. We need to have a comprehensive strategy to deal with that and make sure that we are not overwhelmed by people from other countries.

Before we adjourn for recess, Congress could and should address immigration reform. The American people want us to pass bipartisan immigration reform. The bill passed the Senate with over two-thirds majority. That is very rare. Democrats and Republicans came together to pass a commonsense immigration reform bill that more than 80 percent of the American people support, and more than two-thirds of the Senate support it.

If we can schedule that bill for a vote this week, I am confident it would pass right here on the floor of the House of Representatives. We have a bipartisan House bill, H.R. 15, that is ready to come to the floor and be voted on, and I believe it would pass.

I am honored to be a sponsor of H.R. 15, the bipartisan immigration reform bill. The bill would create jobs here, reduce our budget deficit, ensure America is more competitive in the global economy, unite families, and secure our borders. Just as importantly, it will make sure that our immigration system reflects our values as Americans, a Nation of laws and a Nation of immigrants.

House Republicans have refused to allow a vote on immigration reform and it failed to bring forth a single bill to help improve our broken immigration system or our dire crisis at the border. Instead, we are left with time that we could use to debate minute changes that add bureaucracy and red tape to an already encumbered Endangered Species Act.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so that we can discuss the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act of 2014. It is so important to my home State and so many others in the West and Mountain West.

I also will oppose the rule and the underlying bill and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4315, the 21st Century Endangered Species Transparency Act.

I also want to thank Chairman Hastings for all of the work that he has done on this issue, and I also want to thank him for inviting me to be a part of the ESA Working Group and for including my bill, H.R. 4317, the State, Tribal, and Local Species Transparency and Recovery Act, in the final version of this bill.

In the 19th District, we have been facing a lot of these issues with the Endangered Species Act. We had the lesser prairie chicken. We had the Dunes Sage Lizard and some of the areas dealing with minnows. But one of the things that this bill does in the part of the bill that I introduced is something that is very simple and straightforward and very commonsense, and that is to say we need to make sure, before we make some of these decisions, that we have the facts.

Now, that is kind of a novel idea. When we have a lawsuit, everybody gets to present the facts. And so what we are saying, and when we begin to go down the road of listing, causing millions of dollars' worth of expense and, in some cases, encumbering millions of acres of private property, we need to deal with the facts.

Now, why are we bringing this bill up? Well, it has been pointed out that this bill is like over 40 years old and over 1,500 species have been listed, and only 2 percent of those have been recovered.

Now, imagine going to a doctor and you say: Doctor, what is your outcome ratio? He says: 2 percent of the time I have good outcomes. Or imagine buying a product where you say this product works 2 percent of the time. So, basically, the ESA, Endangered Species Act, does need reform, and my bill, this bill, begins to do that.

What does it do? It just says that when the Federal Government has collected data and they are making the decision, they have to make all of the findings, all of the data that they used to reach that decision available to the States and local governments and to the stakeholders.

That seems fair to me.

The other thing it says is that the local stakeholders and the local State governments and the local county governments have the right to present their facts.

Now, one of the things that is important about that is that, I know a lot more about Lubbock, Texas, than maybe somebody that lives in the State of Oregon or the State of New Jersey. So that local knowledge of the habitat, the conditions is an important part of the data.

So when you are dealing with the facts, then I think we are going to have better outcomes. And if that is the goal of the Endangered Species Act, then why are we trying to suppress the facts? I don't get it. So that is the reason that this is an important part of that.

I notice that the gentleman mentioned that he thinks that this bill somehow dictates what is the best science. Not true. What it says, though, is that all of the data that they collect they have to present to the other stakeholders. What it also says is that the data that the stakeholders and the county and local and State governments present, they have to consider that data.

Now, if somebody has got a study about what they think the conditions in Lubbock, Texas, are, we think the people on the ground in Lubbock, Texas, or in west Texas probably have better information and ought to be a part of that consideration.

I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 4315.

Mr. Chairman, as I was listening to the gentleman, I was wondering if he was talking about the amendment that he had actually offered, because actually he is making the case that I stood up to make today.

Let me tell you what this amendment would do. It would exclude scientific information published solely in the internal Interior Department publications from the definition of ``best available science,'' which would allow the Department of Interior to avoid transparency requirements in section 2 of the bill, which requires that the data used by the Federal agencies for the Endangered Species Act listing decisions to be made publicly available and accessible through the Internet.

So what the gentleman was saying is they cooked the books, they cooked the information, and he doesn't want that to be made available. So here we are making important decisions about the potential taking of people's land, spending millions of dollars in mitigation for what may be false science.

This gentleman's amendment defeats the whole purpose of transparency, the intention of this bill.

What we are trying to do is we are going to say: Let's take the facts, let's take the best available science that the Fish and Wildlife and some of these agencies say that they have, let's compare it with what is the best available science from the stakeholders and come up with the truth.

But the gentleman's amendment, which I urge Members to defeat, defeats the whole purpose of that transparency. The American people deserve that. Their tax money is being used

against them in the fact that the tax money is going out and being used to determine what is the best available science. Now if we have got the best available science--in fact, as the gentleman referred to it as ``cooking the science,'' then the American people ought to have an opportunity to dispute that and it not be hidden from them in some agency memo.

With that, I encourage Members to defeat the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, basically, what the gentleman's amendment would do is strike the language in the section of this bill that requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to consider all data submitted by State, tribal, or county governments as best scientific and commercial data available.

Let me dispel one of the myths. It says that all of this data has to be considered best scientific and commercial data. That is not necessarily true. The Fish and Wildlife Service still has discrimination over what data that it considers. What it does say is that it must consider the data that is submitted.

The other thing that you hear my friends on the other side of the aisle say is that I guess all of the best data and all of the smartest people in the country must be in Washington, D.C., but we have Mr. DeFazio, the gentleman from Oregon, stand up and say:

no, sometimes they cook the books. So I wondered if that memo that the gentleman was talking about was the best commercial and available science for the wolf. Obviously, he was saying it was not.

What we are really saying about all of this is it is just about transparency. It is about recognizing that the people in the States and the local governments may actually have better information on the ground about a lot of these issues than somebody sitting in Washington, looking at some model or some report that someone has drawn up.

I will talk about my State of Texas, for example. The Texas Parks and Wildlife service has developed over 8,000 wildlife management plans covering over 30 million acres. I would probably tell you that those people have some of the best available and commercial science on a lot of the issues facing Texas probably a little bit more than maybe somebody sitting in Washington, D.C., or some other State.

So one of the things that I am a little perplexed about is my colleagues keep fighting the transparency. This President said he was going to have one of the most transparent administrations in history, but that has been far from the truth.

I would encourage my colleagues to defeat this amendment. It defeats the whole purpose of the bill and the intention of letting the American people know the facts.

If you go to a trial, you don't get to use only your facts. You have to hear everybody's facts. Since this is a trial that determines whether these species are in fact endangered or not endangered anymore, we should be able to deal with the facts, but we can't deal with one set of facts. We have to deal with all of the facts.

So if you want to hear all of the facts, defeat this amendment.